Weta43

? Lar airbase on the DCS map is pretty much the same as the one I see if I look a the satellite view on google maps, and the new/old parts of the towns / settlements around it (lar, Berak, Latifi, Khour are also pretty much in the same places as they are in the real world ...

Just tried the audio output - in game seamlessly changed between Bluetooth to QC35's , 3.5mm audio jack to speakers and HDMI output to monitor's built in speakers. If the QC35's are on, sound defaults to them, turn them off and it goes to the 3.5mm speakers, unplug them and the HDMI takes over, same priority going back in. Maybe check your rig a bit more...

LoL, Everyone has a bad day and lets rip occasionally. Nice save :)

So have I:

You just need to get out more ;) (of the cities) I'm not sure what you were expecting either. The map is exactly the same topography as the real area. They were never going to throw in a few extra mountains to make it more interesting, but that said, if you look at this map you'll see that the bits where you've been flying are flat, while most of the map on the other side of the water is not

While it might be a good idea at some stage, if you took the 10m circle around a player (which isn't very big), and procedurally broke it into 1cm^2 triangles, you'd have a 3.1million poly mesh just for that terrain + textures, bump / normal maps. I'm not sure my GPU is up for that... Plus you'd have issues like lumps suddenly appearing where you thought was level ground, which if you're trying to take off or land on the dirt might make for some unpleasant surprises :)

Try moving your point of view & the angle you look from. They're a bit bugged and show much better from some angles than others - they'll be not showing then suddenly pop up. Same time and place, different angle:

I realise it's tempting to 'just ask' whenever you don't know something - it's a forum after all - but if you'd done a little digging, you could have answered your question yourself. As you'll have seen, your question has been answered by people referring to previously released material. & yourself: Right now there are nearly 400 people looking at the forum. Over the course of the day there will presumably be several thousand. It's not realistic to expect E.D. to answer the same question repeatedly every time each one of those people thinks of it. They post FACs and videos, then expect people to look for themselves and try to only ask questions that are 'new'. You're new - if you have trouble working out how to look for stuff on the forum just ask - you'll get a better response than you got here because people would rather teach you how to fish than spend their time fishing for you :) Oh, and in case you missed it, "the real world A-10 warthog version modelled in DCS Does NOT have a rote following AP", which is why the DCS version doesn't either.

Do you still get it if you remove your cockpit mod ?

Yes / No There was, and there still is a system to have discrete weather systems (up to 6) that generate different weather across different parts of the map & that move across the map with time & interact with each other. Most people never click on the tab to meet it, and if you do it's not very intuitive or particularly user friendly, but it does work, and if you play with it you can get some good results. I think there are synch issues on MP which make it even less popular there. I'd like to see it that the systems could be given a user defined starting point / width / length / vertical height / orientation / rate of rotation / direction of travel / travel speed. Some of these are already there, but randomised and access to the setting missing.

I think I worked it out how you could get it to work. :) if you imagine putting a drawstring around that white bit around the outside that keeps the water from falling off, and you pull it tight so that it's all draw together into a single point, then all the travel times and distance things make sense. Except all the water would fall off. :( But - I remember getting taught in high school about this guy Cavendish who discovered back in 1797 that if you got a really big metal ball, it would have its own gravitational field and attract nearby objects. Maybe you could put like a huge metal ball in the middle of the wrapped around map skin - or maybe a big enough metal metal core, wrapped in a whole lot of rock - something about the size of one of those planet things - that would create enough gravity to attract everything towards the middle, and the water wouldn't fall off ? :) But some guy walked across the whole earth with a spirit level and apparently it's all flat, so I must be wrong. :( It wasn't that guy that tried to check for curvature of the earth by building a steam powered rocket to launch himself about half as high as a tall building was it ? :) :)

;) & now you say it it's so obvious...

I didn't pass comment one way or the other, only made an observation. & It's easier to see someone's drowning when you're sitting in the lifeguard's seat by the pool than when you're in the pool playing a game of water polo. :)

The sun God has contracted a trucking firm to drive it back around the other side of the world by breakfast. It's expensive, because in Norway at the moment they only have 4 hours to get there, so they get a lot of speeding tickets. People don't generally get dizzy turning around one full circle in a day. Some people do find the whole concept makes them dizzy, but that's actually because their brains are already spinning just trying to work out which way is up. My question would be - on all those flat earth globes, it's twice as far from Auckland to Chile as it is from Auckland to Alaska, but it takes 22 hours to fly from Auckland to Alaska, and only 11hours to fly Auckland - Chile ??? Hypersonic chem-trail laying public transport ???

Because sometimes they develop things 'on spec' in the hope they can interest someone after the fact ? Because sometimes maybe they want to sell to someone other than the US Govt ? Because they want to persuade the general public that the $610,000,000,000 dollars of US taxpayer money spent on the military in 2017 was money well spent, so they won't encourage the government to spend less ? (If you wanted to distribute that differently, you could give 61 thousand dollars each to 10 million households a year)

Which is why the Kuz is, 'cause it's not a carrier, its a heavy missile cruiser (that happens to have arrestor wires and a ramp). F/A-18C will fly fine from the Kuz. but harder to fly...

This is incorrect. All the DCS & FC3 aircraft that have 2 engines have 2 engines modelled and can have either engine controlled separately (or damaged individually). What is new about the F/A-18C is not that it has 2 engines modelled, but that the 2 engines will not be identical.

neofightr - Just out of curiosity, after reading your comments above about the aircraft constantly moving relative to the air mass and each other - have you ever tried cranking the turbulence setting in the ME as high as it will go & taking fuel with that on ? I'm not sure what happens with the turbulence at altitude, but I've tried it with landing on the carriers, and it makes that a more demanding experience... Does it seem more, or less realistic to you ?

Does that fail IC as an 'advantage' mod ?

F-16 tyres are inflated to 320 lb / in^2 320 pounds per square inch will push something into sandy soil quite well.

Deliberately has it, and not really overdone Pilot to tower: "I've taxied off the runway and I'm stuck in the mud" WYLG60Ywga8

Actually, it's just not true. If you're not fully loaded with fuel and weapons and you stop, most of the time you can drive away again. If you're unlucky you might actually get stuck. Here are 27 pages of discussion around the same issue here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=196639 If you look there are multiple videos and tracks of people taxiing, stopping, starting, landing and taking off from the grass in various aircraft. An example: As well as that video there is a track I posted of landing taxiing, stopping, starting and taking off from the grass in an Su-25 I can summarise the thread for you. The modelling is a reasonable - perhaps generous - representation of the probability of you getting stuck. The ground is not all the same hardness and is modelled as rough & having some boggy bits. 95% of the time you can taxi on the grass. Occasionally you'll get stuck or break something. If you do stop, usually full power either lets you taxi off, or creep along till you get out of a sticky bit, then you're away. If you don't want to risk getting stuck - Don't taxi on the grass.

By my maps.google skills and some estimation, that image makes the low detailed part of the map about 1600 km by 1000 km If you want to fly the F-18, there's nothing to stop you putting a carrier group off Kuwait on that map, and flying CAP along the Iranian coast to Pakistan for a > 3000km round trip, all inside the map ...

Or try (these are spatially arranged as 2 paths). WP1, WP2, WP3, WP4, WP5, WP6, WP7 on each branch WP after WP2 and WP5 have tasks set After takeoff Flight flies to WP1 Flag 1 = true, change waypoint to WP5 if it's not, when they get to WP4 send them home after completing their mission.

Given that the original poster thought the RL video of 4Hz was 5Hz, apparently you can't